Four ways US foreign policy could change if Democrats win in November

A US midterm election is a national election held midway through a president’s four-year term. Voters choose all members of the House and one-third of the Senate. The president remains in office, but Congress can change hands. That matters because Congress writes laws, controls spending, and oversees executive actions.

The party winning a majority of House seats controls the House. The party holding a Senate majority controls the Senate. Control of either chamber gives a party important influence over hearings, legislation, and the congressional agenda. Control of both chambers provides much stronger power to decide what advances.

The article says Democrats had a good chance of winning the House and possibly the Senate. Such a result would give them a slice of power after two years of Republican control. They could use that position to challenge Trump’s foreign-policy decisions, shape funding, and demand public testimony.

Congressional control would give Democrats leverage over foreign policy because Congress controls spending, legislation, and oversight. The article says Democrats believed Republicans had allowed Trump to declare war and control spending, although the Constitution reserves those powers for lawmakers. A Democratic majority could therefore challenge executive decisions more directly.

In either chamber, Democrats could help block or alter funding and require administration officials to testify publicly. They could cut defense spending to pressure Trump to seek congressional permission for continuing the Iran war. If Democrats controlled both chambers, they could decide which proposals receive votes and when, including aid packages or sanctions legislation.

Their power would still have limits. Trump could veto legislation, and some measures would need large majorities to become law over his objection. Even so, control of Congress could restore foreign aid, approve Ukraine assistance, restrict military aid to Israel, and investigate administration plans.

The article describes unusually large sums tied to military and foreign policy. Israel received $3.8 billion in the most recent fiscal year, more than any other country. Trump also asked for a 67 percent increase in military spending, producing a proposed budget of $1.5 trillion. Separately, his administration withheld or canceled billions of dollars in foreign aid that Congress had already approved.

These figures show why congressional control matters. Congress can approve, reject, restore, or restrict spending. Democrats blocked Trump’s proposed military increase in the Senate, citing his refusal to consult Congress about the Iran war and cuts to social programs. They also said they would try to restore canceled foreign aid.

The money affects several policy choices at once. A majority could limit overall defense spending, provide more aid to Ukraine, or restrict weapons for Israel. The article presents these as possible changes, not guaranteed outcomes, because presidential vetoes and congressional vote thresholds remain important.

If Democrats controlled Congress, US policy could shift across three major conflicts. On Iran, they could cut defense funding and demand that Trump obtain congressional approval to continue fighting. They could also require officials to explain administration plans publicly. These steps would increase pressure on the president.

On Ukraine, Democrats could use control of the House and Senate agenda to bring new financial and military aid to a vote. The article says such aid likely could pass with the two-thirds majorities needed to overcome a Trump veto. Democrats could also block Trump’s plan to return Russian diesel to the global market through bipartisan legislation.

On Israel, Democrats could limit or end military aid. Nearly half of House Democrats had already voted to cut off aid, while others supported restrictions on heavy bombs. These possibilities reflect changing party support, but the article does not say any policy change was certain after the election.

A president can veto a bill passed by Congress, but Congress can override that veto with a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate. That mechanism would let lawmakers approve Ukraine aid even if Trump opposed it. The article identifies this as a realistic possibility because support for Ukraine remained broad among Democratic and Republican lawmakers.

Democratic control of both chambers would also determine whether aid reached the floor. The article says Democrats would be able to decide what gets voted on and when. They could therefore schedule a Ukraine package and seek the large bipartisan majorities needed to make it law despite a veto.

This would not make approval automatic. The bill would still need two-thirds support in each chamber, and lawmakers would need to agree on its contents. The article says new aid likely would pass those thresholds, while also noting that Trump had largely halted direct US financial and military aid.

The article links weaker Democratic support to Israel’s conduct during the Gaza war, which it says killed tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians. It also points to continuing violence in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. These developments made military assistance more controversial among Democrats, even though Israel had received more US aid than any other country.

Political relationships mattered too. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had a close alliance with Republicans, which the article identifies as another factor behind Democratic opposition. Nearly half of House Democrats voted during the summer to cut off aid. Others who opposed that effort still supported limits on specific weapons, including heavy bombs.

The shift could affect future funding if Democrats gained control of Congress. They could restrict or end Israel’s $3.8 billion in annual military aid, or attach conditions to assistance. The article presents these as possible congressional actions, reflecting changed Democratic attitudes rather than a settled policy.

The Constitution gives Congress power over war declarations and spending as part of a system that divides government authority. The president leads the executive branch, but lawmakers represent the public in Congress and control the funds needed for government action. This arrangement prevents foreign policy from resting entirely with one office.

The article applies that principle directly to Trump’s Iran policy. Democrats argued that Republicans had allowed his administration to declare war and control spending even though the Constitution reserves those powers for lawmakers. They repeatedly voted to end the fighting unless Trump obtained congressional approval. They also considered cutting defense spending and demanding public testimony.

This structure makes Congress a practical check on the president. Lawmakers can refuse funds, set conditions, investigate plans, or pass legislation. A president can veto bills, but Congress may override a veto with two-thirds majorities in both chambers. The system therefore encourages shared decisions and institutional resistance.